Cargando…

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast ca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeh, Su Kyung, Kim, Sung Hun, Kang, Bong Joo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23323026
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.1.13
_version_ 1782255488496304128
author Jeh, Su Kyung
Kim, Sung Hun
Kang, Bong Joo
author_facet Jeh, Su Kyung
Kim, Sung Hun
Kang, Bong Joo
author_sort Jeh, Su Kyung
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3542297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35422972013-01-15 Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Jeh, Su Kyung Kim, Sung Hun Kang, Bong Joo Korean J Radiol Breast OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two. The Korean Society of Radiology 2013 2012-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3542297/ /pubmed/23323026 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.1.13 Text en Copyright © 2013 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Breast
Jeh, Su Kyung
Kim, Sung Hun
Kang, Bong Joo
Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
title Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
title_full Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
title_fullStr Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
title_short Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
title_sort comparison of the diagnostic performance of response evaluation criteria in solid tumor 1.0 with response evaluation criteria in solid tumor 1.1 on mri in advanced breast cancer response evaluation to neoadjuvant chemotherapy
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23323026
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.1.13
work_keys_str_mv AT jehsukyung comparisonofthediagnosticperformanceofresponseevaluationcriteriainsolidtumor10withresponseevaluationcriteriainsolidtumor11onmriinadvancedbreastcancerresponseevaluationtoneoadjuvantchemotherapy
AT kimsunghun comparisonofthediagnosticperformanceofresponseevaluationcriteriainsolidtumor10withresponseevaluationcriteriainsolidtumor11onmriinadvancedbreastcancerresponseevaluationtoneoadjuvantchemotherapy
AT kangbongjoo comparisonofthediagnosticperformanceofresponseevaluationcriteriainsolidtumor10withresponseevaluationcriteriainsolidtumor11onmriinadvancedbreastcancerresponseevaluationtoneoadjuvantchemotherapy